linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the gpio-brgl tree with the gpio-brgl-fixes tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250314160641.75afdc79@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2025 16:06:41 +1100
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
Cc: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>, Linux Kernel
 Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Next Mailing List
 <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the gpio-brgl tree with the
 gpio-brgl-fixes tree

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the gpio-brgl tree got a conflict in:

  drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c

between commit:

  0102fbf52b93 ("gpiolib: don't check the retval of get_direction() when registering a chip")

from the gpio-brgl-fixes tree and commit:

  9becde08f1bc ("gpiolib: don't use gpiochip_get_direction() when registering a chip")

from the gpio-brgl tree.

I fixed it up (I used the latter as the conflict was just in a comment)
and can carry the fix as necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next
is concerned, but any non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your
upstream maintainer when your tree is submitted for merging.  You may
also want to consider cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting
tree to minimise any particularly complex conflicts.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped